Souders v. Johnson; Franks v. Kazi; Gibbons v. Chavez - 275 Words

Souders v. Johnson; Franks v. Kazi; Gibbons v. Chavez (Coursework Sample) Content: CasesEssayDate(Name)(University)47.8: Souders v. JohnsonWith regard to whom the bank accounts, stocks and the passbook are due for, the contention between the claimants arises from the ambiguity of the term "contentsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ of the condominium. However, owing to the fact that the passbook, bank accounts, and the stocks refer to property that is separate from and external to the condominium, it is reprehensible for Souders to claim them as part of the condominium. Thus, the phrase "the villa and its contents" can be aptly understood as referring to the condominium, the furniture and all the related addendums but not assets outside the condominium and whose records are stored in the villa. Consequently, by claiming the stocks, bank accounts and the passbook as his, Souders acted unethically since these assets are external to the condominium.[Clarkson, Kenneth, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ½Roger Miller and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ½Frank Cross, Business Law: Text and Cases: Legal, Ethical, Gl obal, and Corporate Environment (Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2012).] 47.2: Franks v. KaziMislaid property refers to personal property that is deliberately put away by its holder and then the owner forgets to take it with him upon departure. Conversely, lost property refers to any belonging that is inadvertently left behind by its actual holder. As such, the $14,200 cash bundle was mislaid property since it had been deliberately put away in the drawer by its owner who then forgot to collect it when he was leaving. Accordingly, legal treatment of mislaid property requires that the custody of the item in question be accorded to the person who owns the property on which the money was found and thus, Kazi the proprietor of the hotel where the money was found should receive it.[Libby, Barbara and Vincent Agnello, "Ethical Decision Making and The Law" Journal of Business Ethics 26/3 (2000), 223-232.] [Ibid.] 49.6: Dawson v. LongWhile under the common law the renter bears the responsibilit y of ascertaining the condition of the property prior to agreeing to the rent and thus is liable for any injuries suffered thereafter, under the tort law, the landlord is responsible for keeping safe such common areas of the building as stairways and hallways and is hence liable for any injuries suffered by tenants as a result of negligence of this duty. Consequently, Dawsonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s mother is set to win the suit since the landlord had neglected his duty by failing to keep safe common areas of the apartment.[NPC, Landlordà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s Tort Liability (2014) , Accessed on 24 November 2014.] 49.7: Gibbons v. ChavezWith regard to the tort liability for the dog bites inflicted on Gibbons, the landlord is liable in that, although he had a rule prohibiting pets, he failed to fully enforce the provision, had the capacity to order the removal of the dogs from his property, and had not taken actions such as electing a proper fence among other actions that could have prevented the incident f rom happening. The tenant cannot be held liable.[Phillips, Kenneth Morgan, Liability for Bites by Tenants' Dogs (2014) , Accessed on 24 November 2014.] 48.3: Rembe v. StewartJoint tenancy automatically occasions the survivorship right which expressly transfers the ownership of the property to the surviving tenant in case one of the tenants dies. As such, Rembeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s prayers that the value of the jointly held property be used to settle Chapellà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s claims and debts cannot rightfully granted and hence, Stewart is set to win the case.[William, Hines N., Joint Tenancies in Iowa Today (2012) , Accessed on 24 November 2014.]